LABOR GOVERNMENT

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (15:35): I rise to respond to a matter of interest raised by the Hon. Mr Ridgway last week concerning the assertion that South Australia Police were conducting road traffic blitzes to generate revenue for the government. Such an assertion is arrant nonsense and not becoming of somebody who aspires to be the minister for police. I will read out a SAPOL response to an Advertiser article published on 11 November 2011 to illustrate the point. The article was titled 'Traffic police drive anger'. It states:

In response to the article in today's Advertiser on page 7, 'Traffic police drive anger', police refute that an expiation notice was issued for an unsecure load involving 'a few empty drink cans and a handbag on a front car seat' during Operation Eyre Lock.

The facts in relation to the article in The Advertiser are that only one car was issued with an infringement notice for having an unsecured load in Operation Eyre Lock, and a photograph of the alleged unsecured load is attached—and I show it here, Mr Acting President.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The honourable member should not use props. He is referring to something, but I would ask him not to refer to pictures in the future.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: It is important to remember in this debate that the potential for an unsecured load to cause serious injury, or even death, is high and the public is reminded of their obligation to secure loads. Police are aware of gossip promulgated around Ceduna after the issue of the infringement notice suggesting the notice was issued for loose drink cans. Representatives of The Advertiser in Ceduna were assured by the officer in charge of the Ceduna Police Station that the drink can assertion was incorrect and that photographic evidence existed to substantiate the event.

The Advertiser also advised that no-one had been reported for having a handbag on a seat. The Advertiser sought a response from the police media section in relation to whether police had quotas for the issue of expiation notices and a full response is detailed below:

SAPOL considers that road safety is everyone's responsibility and on that basis expects all police officers to educate the public in respect to road safety. This expectation requires members to have contact with road users who are observed to breach the law in relation to road safety. There is no quota or benchmark for the number of expiation fines a police officer must issue. A road safety contact may result in an arrest, report, the issue of an expiation fine, or the issue of a written caution. Every police officer retains their individual discretion to determine the appropriate course of action dependent on the individual circumstances of the offence.

The facts are: SAPOL does set benchmarks for road safety contacts involving the 'fatal five' of speed, drink/drug driving, inattention, seatbelts and vulnerable road users. Benchmarks are not measured against revenue from expiation notices but against contacts made with road users. The purpose of road safety contacts is to educate the public in respect of road safety and reduce road trauma. As stated above, every police officer has an individual discretion to arrest, report or caution when infringements are detected.

The government has not set road safety benchmarks for SAPOL. No benchmarks are based on the number of fines issued. The Advertiser's assertion that 'some country police stations have been ordered to meet monthly benchmarks for traffic fines or their stations could be closed' is not correct.

I understand the Hon. Mr Ridgway is setting up a Twitter page, and it is a pity he did not bother to check the SAPOL site, because he would have found the facts. Instead of relying on populist arguments to attack our police force, he should consider what police are trying to do, that is, to ensure the safety of motorists in general. As I said earlier, it is a pity that the Hon. Mr Ridgway did not do some research before slurring the good name of SA Police.